G. MAHALINGAPPA versus G.M. SAVITHA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 09-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

G. MAHALINGAPPA 
A 
v. 
G.M. SA VITHA 
AUGUST 9, 2005 
[D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988: Section 4(2). 
Benami transaction-Nature of-Father purchased suit property in the 
name of his minor daughter-Subsequently daughter filed a suit before 
coming into force of the Act for declaration of title to, and recovery of 
possession of the suit proper~Father, in his written statement, took the 
plea of benami and claimed that he was, the real owner of the suit property--
Held: The suit and the written statement were filed long before the Act came 
into force-Hence, the father was entitled to raise the plea of benami and 
to prove that he was the real owner of the suit property-In such a case S. 
4(2) was not applicable. 
Benami transaction-Plea of defence-Nature of-Whether prospective 
or retrospective Held: The Act was prospective in nature and it had no 
relrospective operation except in certain cases-However, Section 4(2) is 
retrospective to the extent that after its con1n1encen1ent no defence based on 
the plea of benami in respect of a past benami transaction is permissible. 
Section 3(2)-Benami transaction-Presumption under-Purchase of 
property in the name of wife or unmarried daughter for their benefit-Held: 
Is rebut/able by production of evidence or other materials. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Section I OU-Second appeal-Concurrent findings of fact-Interference 
with-Power of High Court-Held: Concurrent findings rendered on 
consideration of the pleadings and on oral and documentary evidence on G 
record which were neither perverse nor without any reason nor suffering 
from non-consideration of any important evidence or admission of some of 
the parties, then interference therewith by High Court, in second appeal, not 
justified 
The appellant-father purchased the suit property in the name of his 
H 
487 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
daughter-respondent when she was a minor. Subsequently, the respondent 
filed ~ suit for declaration of title to, and recovery of posse!;sion of, the 
suit property. The appellant in his written statement took the plea that 
the suit property was purchased benami in the name of the respondent 
and claimed himself to be the real owner of the suit property. During the 
pendency of the suit the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 
B 
came into force: 
The trial court as well as the first appellate court decreed the suit 
on the concurrent findings of fact that the appellant was the real owner 
of the suit property and that the respondent was only a benamidar of the 
C 
appellant. 
However, the High Court in second appeal decreed the suit on the 
ground that the appellant had purchased the suit property for the benefit 
of the respondent. Hence the appeal. 
D 
The following question arose before the Court: 
Whether under Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) 
Act, 1988, defence can be allowed to be raised on any right in respect of 
any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the 
property is held or against any other person, in any suit, claim or action 
E 
or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. This Court in Raiagopal Reddy 's case held that the Bena mi 
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was prospective in nature and it has 
F 
no retrospective operation except in respect of some cases :.e. after Section 
4(1) of the Act applied no suit can lie in respect to such a past benami 
transaction. Therefore, it must be held that similar is the position in law 
on the question of retrospectivity of Section 4(2) of the Act. 
G 
1496-G-.f{; 498-B-C) 
R.Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan, 11995) 2 SCC 630, 
Prabodh Chandra Ghosh v. Urmila Dassi, AIR (2000) SC 2534 and C. 
Gangacharan v. C.Narayanan, AIR (2000) SC 589, followed. 
Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare, 11989) 2 SCC 95, referred 
H 
to. 
G. MAHALINGAPPA v. G.M. SAVITHA 
489 
2. In the instant case, the suit was filed long before the coming into 
force of the Act. It is an admitted position that the written statement in 
the suit taking the plea of benami was also filed by the appellant long 
before the Act had come into force. Therefore, it was not a case where 
Section 4(2) of the Act will have a limited operation in the pending suit 
after Section 4(2) of the Act had come into operation. It is true 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.